i want to underscore the comments about not identifying opposing spiritual perspectives or personalities as being assembly or george-like. even if you really think the other person is that way, in the end it really doen't help the discussion at all. its true that long ago sondra(frank) identified herself as a spiritual daughter of george and betty, making the point that what they taught her wasn't all bad. but i still think that bringing it up in the middle of a discussion like this lowers the level of the discussion to a "you are more assembly than me and thus wrong" level, which is really unhelpful, not to mention hurtful.

a few of you also tend to get quite passionate (ok, angry!) when discussing your spiritual views vs other people's. lets face it, no two people have the exact same interpretation of each passage of the bible, or the exact same conception of god, even two christians. so if you want to discuss your various views here and see where they are similar and different, compare notes so to speak, and maybe even sharpen up your personal position by arguing it through with someone, fine. but if you post on here thinking everyone has to be convinced you are right you are going to be terribly disappointed and frustrated, and the negativity will be contagious. so as we discuss volatile topics like this, lets keep it in perspective - which some of you do fantastically, and its very much appreciated.

I think where the problem lies is when we reverse things. We are not saved by an "experience" or a "revelation" and then led to read the Word of God. The opposite is true---we hear or readthe Word of God, and by faith we are saved. An experience may result(an outpouring of tears andemotion), and sometimes not(some people are saved and "experience" very little--they know by the Word of God that they are saved).

When people begin to believe they are being led by God through their "experiences" or "revelations" instead of by the Word of God they have drifted into error. It's like trying to drive across country without a map, and using intuition to get you to Delaware. I believe God does communicate to his children supernaturally. He is, after all, "The God of all comfort", and if we cannot sense that comfort at times, it would mean nothing. But faith in the Word of God comes first, and we trust it whether we "feel" anything or not.

I saw a show about the shooter of an abortion doctor, and the man stated that the night before he shot the doctor he was on the beach with his family. He said he prayed to God about what he was about to do and had the greatest sense of peace and joy--and that he "knew" God wanted him to do what he was about to do. Think of that!!! If he had simply read the Word of God he would have known that what he was about to do was absolutely wrong---but he was allowing "revelations" and "feelings" to rule him---and he ultimately did a horrible thing. He shot a doctor to death in the name of Christ.

I know that is a rather drastic example---but it does show what can happen if one allows themselves to think they are thinking what God is thinking, or that God is speaking to them directly even though it is contrary to the Word of God.

Ok, I hope you are all sitting down for this one....safe assumption I guess.

I think a lot of the skepticism that former assembly people have is FROM George. Yes, people feel betrayed in many ways from George's deception and that in itself causes skepticism, but also George himself was such a skeptic and taught people to be very skeptical.

He taught people NOT TO TRUST in themselves, and with the right meaning attached to it - that would have been good. But I believe many, including myself, took that to mean to question everything you think and listen to God (with George as God's instructor). So this implanted an undue amount of skepticism in childlike hearts.

His criticism of other believers, other Christian denominations, Charismatic, etc. insured exclusivity. He would get very threatened if someone even asked questions about another faith.

I have found extreme skepticism in my own heart and I think part of it is out of my own nature, but I believe I have also traced part of it to the Assembly.

Discernment is grown out of disappointments and failure of things we have placed our trust in. Failure to understand and getting hurt grows our understanding eventually, but first we tend to hunker down in fear for a time and suspect everything and everyone. Admitting an overly skeptical heart and mind (once burned, twice shy), over a long period I learned to discern the views of others (as well as my own) with still a measure of guard, but gaining understanding on it.

So, discerning the spirits is good, but I am convinced that being overly skeptical is not from God. God does speak to the hearts of men and women saying...I will guide you with Mine eye upon you...saying "go to the left, go to the right... No mistake that God's people can hear Him if they can get quiet enough (spiritually speaking). From my experience, I am usually being so noisy with my own nervous thoughts and imagination. The sea of emotions are restless and even in that we need to hear God say, "Peace, Be still." And I often say to myself, "Be still, my soul."

Fear is noisy. Guilt and dread and unbelief are noisy. Worry, intimidation, feelings of inferiority are noisy, etc.

Now revelation, IMO, is more than hearing God's voice and being guided from by God through the Word and through the spirit.

Revelation is "seeing" in the spirit....spiritual "sight." Spots and grime have to be cleaned off the window for light to come in through it. He is that light and He dwells in unapproachable light. I think His light/Truth simply comes in when we make sure the window of our spirit is unobscured. The window is two way and then we can see Him.

What is the dirt on the window? False assumptions, pride, distraction, unbelief (including skepticism) and probably many more such things.

When we get the impediments to faith in His character cleared up, we can see God. God is love. God or Love shines into our souls like light. The tremendous joy and infusion of life then that we feel is from a fresh view of God (Love). We may call it a visit with God, a fellowship, but how could we call it that if we didn't see Him in the spiritual sense?

You're probably saying one thing where I am hearing another, but I must say it soundssuspiciously like what my sister used to say. She followed a Guru and sat for hours med-itating, clearing her mind of negativity so she could spiritually "see" God through the thirdeye(the spiritual vision). She would try to rid her mind of all skepticism and negativity, andliterally let her mind "clear", and she stated to me that she would "see" God in the spiritualsense and fall into a state of "bliss".

When you say that revelation is "more than hearing God's voice and being guided from byGod through the Word and through his spirit" that sounds mystical and strange. My sister thought she was being led by, and was seeing God, through the spirit, but she was followinga cultic Guru of Hindu persuasion. Her "bliss" may indeed have been very real to her, but shewas not in contact with the True God at all.

You are probably saying something entirely different, and if so, forgive the inference that you areteaching Hindu philosophy. I just wanted to mention the resemblance your teaching of revelationhas to what my sister used to believe.

You're probably saying one thing where I am hearing another, but I must say it soundssuspiciously like what my sister used to say. She followed a Guru and sat for hours med-itating, clearing her mind of negativity so she could spiritually "see" God through the thirdeye(the spiritual vision). She would try to rid her mind of all skepticism and negativity, andliterally let her mind "clear", and she stated to me that she would "see" God in the spiritualsense and fall into a state of "bliss".

I didn't say "bliss" and I don't have a guru, Joe, . I never find myself in a state of "bliss" - but by yielding to the Holy Spirit and not allowing my mind and emotions to run away - I walk in peace and can "see" the Lord with the eyes of the spirit. It's the same as keeping one's eyes on the Lord, but I used to just throw that little phrase out there and didn't do it....and I sank into the troubled waters like Peter.

On Edit-

Another scripture that one might use for this concept is the one about "casting down the imaginations....etc." There has to be a way of "not fearing" for example if God commands us not to fear. I beleive we are called to control our own minds and thoughts. Otherwise, it's a field day. Once we have coraled our doubts, fears, etc. we can "see" better.

In our former discussion I maintained that truth was communicated through the scriptures by word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation.

While waiting for Tom, I have been doing a search of the Scripture for the words "truth" and "understanding". The Bible is after all, is its own best commentary.While the above statement by Tom Maddux has clear application when one is speaking of a work that has merely literary qualities, can the Bible be designated as such a work? That is, a book possessing only literary qualities. Can truth that is spiritual, be communicated by a grasp of word meaning, grammatical construction and employing sound principles of interpretation?What do I mean by truth that is spiritual?By that I simply mean an understanding that the things which are seen,were not made by things that are visiible. There are counltess numbers of "Bible experts" who are masters of word meaning, grammatical construction and sound principles of interpretation (and are teaching others) but not in possession of spiritual truth. How can that be?

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Psalm 119:18

Most of us would not assume here that the Psalmist is blind and asking God for sight.Most of us would not assume that he cannot read and is requesting assistance in that regard.Who after reading this verse, believes that the Psalmist is asking God to help him with "word meaning, grammatical contsruction, and sound principles of interpretation?

Of course the larger philosophical question that Tom and I are tackling here is this:

Is truth that is rejected, truth that is truly understood?

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 2 Cor 3:14

Would more itense training in word meaning, grammatical contruction and sound prinicples of interpretation help the above folk to grasp the truth of what they were reading?

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Cor 4:3-4

How about the above folk? Would the answer for them to apprehend the "truth of the gospel" be a crash course in word meaning, grammatical contruction and sound principles of interpretation?

I think a lot of the skepticism that former assembly people have is FROM George.

My generation (baby boomers) really promotes cynicism. I think this is unhealthy as it is the tendency to mock and think the worst of everything. (It is interesting to note the acceptance of satire shows today - Simpsons, Family Guy, etc - in comparison to thirty years ago when the main one was pioneering All In the Family). In fact, I work hard to try and weed cynicism out of my life and hold to a positive outlook when it is merited.

Skepticism is not wrong providing it does not degenerate into cynicism. In fact, I think folks would do well with a healthy dose of skepticism especially in this day when those who claims a subjective experience with God is so readily received.

I don't believe that I became skeptical of things because George is skeptical (in fact, I don't think he was skeptical - I think he just didn't like other ministries encroching upon his movement). In fact my skepticism was born for quite the opposite reasons.

When I joined the Assembly, I was wide open. I was told to enter in, push forward, cross over and I jumped in with all my feet. I wanted to be a royal overcomer and that meant being faithful to the meetings, saying amen, signing up for early morning prayer tower, doing chapter summary at work, confronting slackers. I believed that we were following God's pattern of worship, that we were the New Testament church, that we were more spiritual than the local denominational church, that seminars was where God gave special insight through his servant George. I believed that all people should get saved and join the Assembly and those who didn't had issues. I believed that my family was unsaved and worldly and that choosing the Assembly over them pleased God. I believed that in my quiet time I should read the Bible until a verse stood out and my heart was impressed and that is what means that God was speaking to me. I believed that we should do away with commentaries and systematic theologies and read our Bible upon our knees and we would have more insight and wisdom that those who devoted their careers to careful Bible scholarship. After all, that is what George did.

Over time, I realized that my belief system had flaws. I realized that I had let things in that seemed right but were wrong. Unwittingly, I had followed Debbie Boone's song, "it can't be wrong when it feels so right" and now look where it got me.

One of the things that I learned in my years after the Assembly is that I need to be a more thoughtful Christian. I need to have a wider breadth of understanding (so I read church history. If I read Christian books, it is only if the book broadens my horizens, not simply affirms what I already believe). I have been around the church long enough to see fads come and go so I don't get worked up when someone comes in and says, "the problem with the church is this and if we do this the problem will be solved". Or if someone says, "God is teaching me that we need to worship this way", I balance that with the fact that the church got along for 2000 years just fine worshiping in other ways. if someone says, "God said to me," I don't confront them but I don't necessarily assume that it was really God who bent down from heaven and whispered in this person's ear. I take their statement and evaluate it for what its worth.

The thing to watch is that being critical (or better yet discerning) about folk's ideas, revelations, and subjective experiences must not degenerate into cynicism; otherwise, you have a nasty problem the other way.

By that I simply mean an understanding that the things which are seen,were not made by things that are visiible. There are counltess numbers of "Bible experts" who are masters of word meaning, grammatical construction and sound principles of interpretation (and are teaching others) but not in possession of spiritual truth. How can that be?

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. Psalm 119:18

Most of us would not assume here that the Psalmist is blind and asking God for sight.Most of us would not assume that he cannot read and is requesting assistance in that regard.Who after reading this verse, believes that the Psalmist is asking God to help him with "word meaning, grammatical contsruction, and sound principles of interpretation?

Notice what he is praying for:1. That HIS eyes my be opened...2. That HE may behold wonderful things.....3. That he may behold wonderful things OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The man is praying for clarity of thought and insight. Nothing here about truth being communicated by mystical means. BTW "mystical" is not meant to be insulting. It is the correct word for informatiion communicated directly from God, bypassing the senses of the recipient.

"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who SUPPRESS the truth by their wickedness."

Its hard to suppress something you don't know.

"Since what my be known about God IS PLAIN TO THEM, because GOD has made it plain to them..."

Its hard to say they don't understand what God has made plain. In addition, we are told that He has made it plain through the creation of the natural universe. In other words, God holds men responsible to acknowledge his existence and at least some of his attributes, because of information available to all men everywhere through their natural senses!

Also notice Rom. 1:21. It says that the darkness of mind and heart RESULTS from the rejection of the truth that men already understand.

Not the other way around. The order is a. revelation b. perception c. understanding d. moral choice-rejection e. darkness. (shudder)

In light of this, 2 Cor 4:3-4 is talking about people who have rejected the truth contained in their own scriptures for centuries.

You said,"countless numbers of Bible experts"? Criticizing hypothetical people does nothing to establish your point.

Let me clarify and you are right that it was too broad a statement.What I meant was that there are seminary professors and Biblical scholars who are not born again - I know several. How's that for clarity?

Quote

Notice what he is praying for:1. That HIS eyes my be opened...2. That HE may behold wonderful things.....3. That he may behold wonderful things OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

The man is praying for clarity of thought and insight. Nothing here about truth being communicated by mystical means. BTW "mystical" is not meant to be insulting. It is the correct word for informatiion communicated directly from God, bypassing the senses of the recipient.

Thomas Maddux

A few questions Tom. How is clarity of thought to be achieved?By a better understanding of word meaning? By a better grasp of the grammatical construction of the text?By the sound applicaton of principles of interpretation?

Here's the point - the Psalmist does not need God in order to do the above effectively...certainly not to do so in accordance with established academic protocol regarding such things. Anyone properly trained could do it could they not? Why does he need to ask God to do what he or anyone else could by mere application of protocol?Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by insight? Is that not a bit mystical? Verne

"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who SUPPRESS the truth by their wickedness."

Its hard to suppress something you don't know.

"Since what my be known about God IS PLAIN TO THEM, because GOD has made it plain to them..."

Its hard to say they don't understand what God has made plain. In addition, we are told that He has made it plain through the creation of the natural universe. In other words, God holds men responsible to acknowledge his existence and at least some of his attributes, because of information available to all men everywhere through their natural senses!

Also notice Rom. 1:21. It says that the darkness of mind and heart RESULTS from the rejection of the truth that men already understand.

Not the other way around. The order is a. revelation b. perception c. understanding d. moral choice-rejection e. darkness. (shudder)

In light of this, 2 Cor 4:3-4 is talking about people who have rejected the truth contained in their own scriptures for centuries.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Excellent response Tom and thanks for taking the time.Your point perfectly illustrates what is driving the nature of the current debate, namely, whether we can distinguish clearly between general and special revelation, and whether God today continues to employ both.While the Bible is correctly considered special revelation, there are clearly things stated that can be known generally - Christ died for sins. That can be generally known.

However, to know Christ as Savior - that is special revelation.No one can arrive at that truth by just a correct apprehension of "word meaning, grammatical construction, and sound principles of interpretation."I may read a passage in the book of Job where he has made a covenant with his eyes regarding looking at a maid, and derive the literal message of the passage with little effort.Then again I may read that passage and have the Spirit of God speak to me in such a way that I find myself empowered in a new way to deal with the lust of the eyes...The Word of God is powerful...!

Here is what I think is a big hint with regard to your reference to the senses.General revelation is to the senses, what Special revelation is to the spirit.In other words, you would have great difficulty describing to me what "spiritual senses" are.Now I am really starting to get mystical... Verne